|A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language email@example.com (Pete Gray) (2003-07-15)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-07-21)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming language email@example.com (Pete Gray) (2003-07-23)|
|Re: A microcontroller-centric, target-neutral programming langua firstname.lastname@example.org (2003-07-25)|
|From:||email@example.com (Grant Edwards)|
|Date:||25 Jul 2003 21:13:38 -0400|
|References:||03-07-103 03-07-159 03-07-165|
|Posted-Date:||25 Jul 2003 21:13:38 EDT|
Pete Gray wrote:
> Target-neutral in the sense that a generic p-code would be
> generated, as a transient state between the high-level language
> and assembly language. Target-neutral p-code (or as I refer to
> it, n-code) to target-specific assembly code translators would
> then be created, as required, for each target. Naturally, the
> n-code would need to contain enough detailed information for
> the "n-code to assembly language translator" to be effective.
How does this differ from other compilers (gcc for example)?
> The benefit being the logical and physical separation of the
> language and compiler from the target. Adopting this scheme
> allows all targets to benefit from enhancements to the language
> (and compiler) without the need for target-specific compiler
> modifications. It removes the need for target-specific ports of
> the compiler.
AFAIK, this is pretty much SOP for compilers these days. It's
how gcc works.
> An additional (and significant) benefit to this design is that
> once a suitable n-code scheme is adopted, compilers for "other"
> high-level languages could be developed to generate n-code. The
> point here being that when these new compilers are developed,
> they will already be able to support targets for which "n-code
> to assembly language translators" have been developed.
Yup. That's why when you build gcc you can pick from a
half-dozen or more languages and a dozen or so target
> Having said all that, the focus of my question was meant to be
> "Open Source versus Sponsorship" ... he said, trying to ensure
> the nature of the original post isn't bypassed.
I still maintain that "Open Source" and "Sponsorship" are not
mutually exclusive, and are, in fact, orthogonal concepts.
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want the presidency
at so bad I can already taste
visi.com the hors d'oeuvres.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.